Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

["Spencer Dawkins" <[e-mail]>]

For what it's worth, I thought I remembered which document David was talking 
about in his second case, and confirmed that it was 
draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil-09.txt.

There are narrative minutes from the telechat where David's DISCUSS position 
was discussed, at 
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Narrative/iesg-narrative-minutes-02-16-2006.html, 
in case anyone wants to see what an IESG chat about ABSTAIN and override 
voting might look like...

See "2.1.2 Returning Item".

Thanks,

Spencer

From: "Fred Baker" <[e-mail]>

> On Jun 17, 2008, at 6:02 AM, David Kessens wrote:
>> If my memory serves me correctly, we didn't have to do a formal
>> override vote in both cases as the request of an override vote was
>> enough to get the first case moving, while in the second case I
>> decided that an informal strawpoll was enough to decide that I
>> didn't have enough support for my opinion so I switched to an ABSTAIN.
>
> In my experience, which is now dated, that has been the norm. During
> my tenure, we had at least two cases where an AD said "'discuss' and
> I'm not going to remove it no matter what". The first resulted in the
> crafting of the override procedure; the second had us drawing that
> sword. But the threat of its use resulted in the desired behavior, so
> it was never actually used. There was a third that one could mention;
> it resulted in the working group rewriting the document completely.
> The rewrite was a dramatic improvement; the "discuss" was removed as
> a result. 


_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf